InStyle

[Simpleman424]

Just now, JimmySpeaks said:

Did you say I was creeping ?

Yes…I literally said I thought you went to look at his profile or something to get his age. Or maybe you knew it from previous conversations I don’t know but yikes if you took that as serious as it seems you may have…that’s crazy.

[JimmySpeaks]

7 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

Yes…I literally said I thought you went to look at his profile or something to get his age. Or maybe you knew it from previous conversations I don’t know but yikes if you took that as serious as it seems you may have…that’s crazy.

So you were wrong. Thank you. 

[Simpleman424]

2 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

So you were wrong. Thank you. 

Umm…sure. Didn’t even definitely said you did anything but alright…you guys and this demanding people is insane.  Honestly wouldn’t even have been a big deal if you looked at his profile. Might have to not hang out in these rooms anymore…things are not this serious…

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

Umm…sure. Didn’t even definitely said you did anything but alright…you guys and this demanding people is insane.  Honestly wouldn’t even have been a big deal if you looked at his profile. Might have to not hang out in these rooms anymore…things are not this serious…

Dude. I already said I take nothing on this site as serious.  You obviously thought something that I said was incorrect, it’s ok to admit it. 

Edited August 1 by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

5 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

Umm…sure. Didn’t even definitely said you did anything but alright…you guys and this demanding people is insane.  Honestly wouldn’t even have been a big deal if you looked at his profile. Might have to not hang out in these rooms anymore…things are not this serious…

And Dude, put the drink down and type English. 

[WrestlingRasta]

9 hours ago, Simpleman424 said:

Umm…sure. Didn’t even definitely said you did anything but alright…you guys and this demanding people is insane.  Honestly wouldn’t even have been a big deal if you looked at his profile. Might have to not hang out in these rooms anymore…things are not this serious…

That would be a shame.  The board could use more folks who are capable of just simply having a grown up conversation. You are one of a few.

[1032004]

23 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

There are a lot of people who bare some level of responsibility for the cluster fuck that was the covid response, but the foundation of all of that starts with Fauci and his lies.  Mostly his lies about where the virus came from, and his lies about in what ways the vaccine was effective.  Make no mistake, the virus was/is one that needed serious attention and serious addressing.  It killed millions, and not just the elderly, it killed thousands of 'younger' people as well.  Beyond the deaths, many many of those who got sick and survived are still experiencing the repercussions from this disease. Likewise, the vaccine was effective, just not in the manner in which they told us it was going to be effective, and the narrative they kept pushing even when we saw what it actually would do.  It didn't keep us from contracting the disease like they told us it would, it did significantly reduce the level of sickness we experienced after contracting the virus.  For some that meant hardly feeling any effects instead of weeks of sickness, for some that meant living instead of dying.  

But the lies opened the door to this becoming a political game of messaging instead of being strictly about public health and appropriately addressing a very serious crisis.  When that started, along with it came a whole lot of misinformation, and suppression of information, and it was all for the messaging, not for the better of the people.  And, as is with today's world of social media and influencers, people began seeking information from the tune of confirmation bias instead of understanding raw information. The vaccine is a good example, there is this belief by thousands that the shot was developed over a period of a few months.  What those people don't realize is that it was developed over the course of about ten years, and once this virus hit the world, all they needed was to add the 'cherry on the top', so to speak. That was the specific purpose of the ten years of development, so that if something novel did come about, all they would need is the cherry (specific spike protein) on top to have a vaccine.  But with all the lies, misinformation, and suppression of information that went on before the vaccine was ready to go, it can only be expected the vast differences in 'opinions' on the vaccine existed as they did.   When we have our nation's top public officials, political officials, residents in the white house, all focusing on this game of messaging and lying....whether it be to cover their ass in their jobs, public perception and reputations, votes, or dollars....the public isn't going to know who to trust or what to believe, and you have the cluster fuck that we had, resulting in a lot more people dying than should have.  These are the people we are supposed to trust to take care of these major crisis, and they violated that trust. And it all started with Fauci.  At the beginning, I wanted to listen to Fauci over any politician....he's they guy that has worked directly in this stuff his entire life, not the politicians or youtubers and podcasters.  But he violated that trust with the lies, and as I said in the beginning of this way too long post, led this from being an issue where our officials charged with dealing with a public health crisis instead became more focused on messaging and politics.  It all started with him. 

 

21 hours ago, 1032004 said:

As I said previously, when talking about the vaccine, Fauci would almost always say that there were still going to be breakthrough infections, and that it wasn’t 100% effective (even in the same conversation of the often-cited quote).  I think what really changed the effectiveness was the Delta variant (even though to your point, it was still pretty effective) and later Omicron. Based on the information we had at that time including the trials and early studies I don’t think it’s fair to say that he lied about the vaccine effectiveness.

The one incident where you can probably say he “lied” was early on when he discouraged the general public from wearing masks.  He later acknowledged that this was in part to prevent people from panic buying and he wanted them available for HCW’s.   But even that was also super early and we didn’t know the extent of asymptomatic spread.

He did make some mistakes, but it was a novel virus and hindsight is 20/20, he seemed to always have the best interest of the country in mind (even though he apparently also liked the spotlight).  The MAGA crusade against him is ridiculous, especially in light of the diary which shows how much respect Trump and even the wives of demons like Katie Miller had for him.  IMO the biggest mistake he made was recommending people get 2 doses of the vaccine right away.  We probably should have done like the UK and spaced them out more, mostly to get more people at least some protection as fast as possible, but it also likely would have reduced the myocarditis risk in young males.

@WrestlingRasta curious if you agree with any of this.

I’m also curious if you can provide some additional insight into what in information about the vaccine you’re saying was suppressed even before it was available.

[WrestlingRasta]

20 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

 

@WrestlingRasta curious if you agree with any of this.

I’m also curious if you can provide some additional insight into what in information about the vaccine you’re saying was suppressed even before it was available.

I didn’t say information about the vaccine development was surpressed, my using that as an example was in reference to people seeing information from the angle of confirmation bias instead of understanding raw information, not as an example of suppression. I learned about the vaccine development that led to it by doing searches and reading about it without a pre-formed goal of what I wanted to find. 
 

And I disagree that the mask topic is the only thing he lied about.   I mentioned other examples in my previous post, no need to repeat.  I don’t doubt that he had interest of public health in mind, but I believe in addition to that he also had CYA in mind. And he lied.  Regardless of why, a person in his position and expertise lying to the public in a time like that is unacceptable, inexcusable, and should be held to account. 

[JimmySpeaks]

2 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

That would be a shame.  The board could use more folks who are capable of just simply having a grown up conversation. You are one of a few.

Ya I wish there was a second 

[Caveira]

fantastic video.  4 mins long or so.  Gets good around 2 min mark.   Constant lying by faucci 

 

[1032004]

On 8/1/2026 at 9:03 AM, WrestlingRasta said:

I didn’t say information about the vaccine development was surpressed, my using that as an example was in reference to people seeing information from the angle of confirmation bias instead of understanding raw information, not as an example of suppression. I learned about the vaccine development that led to it by doing searches and reading about it without a pre-formed goal of what I wanted to find. 
 

And I disagree that the mask topic is the only thing he lied about.   I mentioned other examples in my previous post, no need to repeat.  I don’t doubt that he had interest of public health in mind, but I believe in addition to that he also had CYA in mind. And he lied.  Regardless of why, a person in his position and expertise lying to the public in a time like that is unacceptable, inexcusable, and should be held to account. 

I explained why I disagreed with your characterization of the vaccine effectiveness as a lie.

The only other example you gave was the origin.  Yeah I’m sure there was some CYA there but calling that a “lie” is also a stretch IMO.  That seems to imply he definitely knew where it came from, I don’t think that was the case and frankly we still don’t know for sure.  Yeah based on what we know now an accidental lab leak is probably most likely but IIRC, while he tried to nudge the natural origin theory Fauci always left open multiple possibilities.   But yes, he probably knew the uneducated folks would do exactly what they’re doing now - if they found out his department funded any research at the WIV (even if not technically GoF), they would claim that means the pandemic is Fauci’s fault.

Maybe you need to define what you call “political,” but while I agree both sides are responsible for making it political, I also strongly disagree with blaming Fauci as a key player in that.   As you can see in the diary he actually had a pretty good relationship with Trump for awhile, so if he was being too political Trump would have turned on him far sooner.   There was definitely an element of the left that wanted to oppose anything Trump did, and yes some information (often misinformation) was “suppressed,” but from what I saw while the left got stuff wrong, more of the deliberate misinformation came from the right.  For example the most memorable one for me was when the right tried saying “John’s Hopkins says Covid isn’t increasing total deaths!” which was based on a student “newsletter” that itself was based on a webinar with some terribly flawed analysis.  Worse, after it was retracted (but the original article remained available) the right claimed they were being censored…

[JimmySpeaks]

8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I explained why I disagreed with your characterization of the vaccine effectiveness as a lie.

The only other example you gave was the origin.  Yeah I’m sure there was some CYA there but calling that a “lie” is also a stretch IMO.  That seems to imply he definitely knew where it came from, I don’t think that was the case and frankly we still don’t know for sure.  Yeah based on what we know now an accidental lab leak is probably most likely but IIRC, while he tried to nudge the natural origin theory Fauci always left open multiple possibilities.   But yes, he probably knew the uneducated folks would do exactly what they’re doing now - if they found out his department funded any research at the WIV (even if not technically GoF), they would claim that means the pandemic is Fauci’s fault.

Maybe you need to define what you call “political,” but while I agree both sides are responsible for making it political, I also strongly disagree with blaming Fauci as a key player in that.   As you can see in the diary he actually had a pretty good relationship with Trump for awhile, so if he was being too political Trump would have turned on him far sooner.   There was definitely an element of the left that wanted to oppose anything Trump did, and yes some information (often misinformation) was “suppressed,” but from what I saw while the left got stuff wrong, more of the deliberate misinformation came from the right.  For example the most memorable one for me was when the right tried saying “John’s Hopkins says Covid isn’t increasing total deaths!” which was based on a student “newsletter” that itself was based on a webinar with some terribly flawed analysis.  Worse, after it was retracted (but the original article remained available) the right claimed they were being censored…

You just can’t stop can you? Everything you do is but but but the right did it too.  Then you follow it up with “from what I saw the right was worse”.  

[WrestlingRasta]

26 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I explained why I disagreed with your characterization of the vaccine effectiveness as a lie.

The only other example you gave was the origin.  Yeah I’m sure there was some CYA there but calling that a “lie” is also a stretch IMO.  That seems to imply he definitely knew where it came from, I don’t think that was the case and frankly we still don’t know for sure.  Yeah based on what we know now an accidental lab leak is probably most likely but IIRC, while he tried to nudge the natural origin theory Fauci always left open multiple possibilities.   But yes, he probably knew the uneducated folks would do exactly what they’re doing now - if they found out his department funded any research at the WIV (even if not technically GoF), they would claim that means the pandemic is Fauci’s fault.

Maybe you need to define what you call “political,” but while I agree both sides are responsible for making it political, I also strongly disagree with blaming Fauci as a key player in that.   As you can see in the diary he actually had a pretty good relationship with Trump for awhile, so if he was being too political Trump would have turned on him far sooner.   There was definitely an element of the left that wanted to oppose anything Trump did, and yes some information (often misinformation) was “suppressed,” but from what I saw while the left got stuff wrong, more of the deliberate misinformation came from the right.  For example the most memorable one for me was when the right tried saying “John’s Hopkins says Covid isn’t increasing total deaths!” which was based on a student “newsletter” that itself was based on a webinar with some terribly flawed analysis.  Worse, after it was retracted (but the original article remained available) the right claimed they were being censored…

Again you are mis-characterizing what I actually said and arguing something I did not say (I didn’t say Fauci was “being too political”, in fact I said nothing of Facui making being political at all.  What I said was his lies opened the door to the political game), and that kind of conversation just does not interest me.  I prefer to stick with what was said.  
 

We disagree, and that’s okay. 

[Lipdrag]

On 7/31/2026 at 8:59 PM, JimmySpeaks said:

Just in case you didn’t figure it out ……. 1032004 is Oct 3, 2004   

March 10th in Europe and other parts of the world.

[mspart]

https://jonathanturley.org/2026/08/06/the-sound-of-silence-dr-faucis-contempt-of-congress-can-be-challenged-but-his-contempt-for-the-public-cannot-be-denied/#more-247998

Interesting article by Turley about Fauci's 5th amendment situation with regard to contempt of Congress.  Dr Turley says that Fauci has the right to take the 5th, and that it will be tough to prosecute him for that by Congress or DOJ.   But he also feels that Fauci has the moral responsibility to answer to things he did and the contradicting things he wrote in his diary.   A very interesting take on the subject.  

“Today I am the most famous and talked-about person in the country.” Those words from the diary of Dr. Anthony Fauci will certainly be true today as the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs moves forward with holding him in contempt for refusing to answer over a hundred questions about his past conduct and statements as the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The contempt vote will start a process that is fraught with political and legal challenges. Even putting aside the objections to the direct referral from the Committee to the Justice Department (rather than submit the matter to a full Senate vote), there remain serious questions about whether Fauci can be held in contempt after invoking his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment. As I have previously stated, this area is rather murky and Fauci likely has the advantage in any litigation.

At the outset, it is important to note that Fauci always faced a risk of perjury in his prior appearances. Even if immunized, a witness can always be prosecuted for false statements. Fauci is in a much stronger position today than he was in prior hearings due to the sweeping pardon he received from former President Joe Biden. Yet, he suddenly decided to remain silent when his own words came back to contradict him.

Now for the legal questions.

If a witness is immunized, they can be compelled to testify. If, for example, the Senate granted Fauci immunity, there would be little question about his answering these questions as well as the ability to charge him for any false statements.

The Senate Committee is arguing that the Biden pardon had the same impact. Since Fauci cannot be prosecuted for any acts during the extended period of the pardon (going back to 2014 when the government allegedly funded “gain-of-function research). Chairman Rand Paul did an excellent job in putting this issue into sharp relief in his final set of questions by framing his inquiry as confined to the period of his pardon.

The argument is credible and, for many, compelling: since Fauci cannot be prosecuted for any conduct during the pardon period, he has no legal exposure so long as he speaks truthfully.

For Fauci, that is a question that could be highly subjective. He referred to the risk of a “perjury trap” in his opening statement. He declared, “The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something — anything — that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, quote, ‘behind bars.’”

Even that statement could present a matter for litigation. Congress previously found in 2013 when high-ranking IRS leader Lois Lerner also pleaded the Fifth after giving an opening statement before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The Justice Department under the Obama Administration refused to prosecute. Fauci will argue that such a general statement does not waive the privilege and that, when asked a question, he promptly and consistently invoked it.

Of course, this is the Trump Administration, not the Obama Administration. Ironically, if the matter is litigated, the Administration will be in the position of defending the pardon, which it has long questioned, as the result of Joe Biden’s infamous autopen. The ability to hold Fauci in contempt becomes dependent on that pardon being valid.

The Justice Department can argue that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the mere fear of a perjury charge is insufficient to compel witnesses who are immunized, dating back to 1896 in Brown v. Walker. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “anticipatory perjury” is not a basis for such a refusal to testify in cases such as United States v. Apfelbaum.

However, Fauci can cite new state investigations as unaffected by the federal pardon, as well as new questions arising outside the pardon that could theoretically pose ongoing risks of criminal prosecution.

Courts have generally adopted broad interpretations to protect the right to remain silent, a touchstone of our legal system. That is why I believe Fauci likely has the edge in any challenge.

The fact is that it is uncertain. The cases in this area remain relatively sparse, and any pardon case is highly case-specific to the confines and scope of the specific pardon.

If so, Fauci can remain silent, but that silence will remain deafening for many in this country.

The right to do something does not make it the right thing to do. Fauci, in my view, was wrong to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination even if it was his right to do so. Millions of Americans lost loved ones during the pandemic, and the United States had one of the worst records in dealing with COVID-19 in terms of costs and deaths. Fauci’s diaries exposed disturbing contradictions between what he previously stated publicly and what he actually believed. Americans have a right to know the truth, and Fauci was not saying a thing, invoking the privilege 111 times.

He will say nothing to the families who lost loved ones or the business owners ruined by now-debunked pandemic measures.

He will say nothing to the scientists who were canceled, blacklisted, and fired for opposing these policies. Those scientists did not get the bobbleheads and celebrity photos that Fauci celebrated in his diaries. As the mob hounded them, Fauci said nothing as he gushed about his own fame in his diary.

He will say nothing despite the protection of a presidential pardon. For that, he should be rightfully condemned. Fauci’s contempt of Congress is challengeable, but his contempt for the public is undeniable.

mspart

 

 

 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

https://jonathanturley.org/2026/08/06/the-sound-of-silence-dr-faucis-contempt-of-congress-can-be-challenged-but-his-contempt-for-the-public-cannot-be-denied/#more-247998

Interesting article by Turley about Fauci's 5th amendment situation with regard to contempt of Congress.  Dr Turley says that Fauci has the right to take the 5th, and that it will be tough to prosecute him for that by Congress or DOJ.   But he also feels that Fauci has the moral responsibility to answer to things he did and the contradicting things he wrote in his diary.   A very interesting take on the subject.  

“Today I am the most famous and talked-about person in the country.” Those words from the diary of Dr. Anthony Fauci will certainly be true today as the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs moves forward with holding him in contempt for refusing to answer over a hundred questions about his past conduct and statements as the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The contempt vote will start a process that is fraught with political and legal challenges. Even putting aside the objections to the direct referral from the Committee to the Justice Department (rather than submit the matter to a full Senate vote), there remain serious questions about whether Fauci can be held in contempt after invoking his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment. As I have previously stated, this area is rather murky and Fauci likely has the advantage in any litigation.

At the outset, it is important to note that Fauci always faced a risk of perjury in his prior appearances. Even if immunized, a witness can always be prosecuted for false statements. Fauci is in a much stronger position today than he was in prior hearings due to the sweeping pardon he received from former President Joe Biden. Yet, he suddenly decided to remain silent when his own words came back to contradict him.

Now for the legal questions.

If a witness is immunized, they can be compelled to testify. If, for example, the Senate granted Fauci immunity, there would be little question about his answering these questions as well as the ability to charge him for any false statements.

The Senate Committee is arguing that the Biden pardon had the same impact. Since Fauci cannot be prosecuted for any acts during the extended period of the pardon (going back to 2014 when the government allegedly funded “gain-of-function research). Chairman Rand Paul did an excellent job in putting this issue into sharp relief in his final set of questions by framing his inquiry as confined to the period of his pardon.

The argument is credible and, for many, compelling: since Fauci cannot be prosecuted for any conduct during the pardon period, he has no legal exposure so long as he speaks truthfully.

For Fauci, that is a question that could be highly subjective. He referred to the risk of a “perjury trap” in his opening statement. He declared, “The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something — anything — that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, quote, ‘behind bars.’”

Even that statement could present a matter for litigation. Congress previously found in 2013 when high-ranking IRS leader Lois Lerner also pleaded the Fifth after giving an opening statement before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The Justice Department under the Obama Administration refused to prosecute. Fauci will argue that such a general statement does not waive the privilege and that, when asked a question, he promptly and consistently invoked it.

Of course, this is the Trump Administration, not the Obama Administration. Ironically, if the matter is litigated, the Administration will be in the position of defending the pardon, which it has long questioned, as the result of Joe Biden’s infamous autopen. The ability to hold Fauci in contempt becomes dependent on that pardon being valid.

The Justice Department can argue that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the mere fear of a perjury charge is insufficient to compel witnesses who are immunized, dating back to 1896 in Brown v. Walker. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “anticipatory perjury” is not a basis for such a refusal to testify in cases such as United States v. Apfelbaum.

However, Fauci can cite new state investigations as unaffected by the federal pardon, as well as new questions arising outside the pardon that could theoretically pose ongoing risks of criminal prosecution.

Courts have generally adopted broad interpretations to protect the right to remain silent, a touchstone of our legal system. That is why I believe Fauci likely has the edge in any challenge.

The fact is that it is uncertain. The cases in this area remain relatively sparse, and any pardon case is highly case-specific to the confines and scope of the specific pardon.

If so, Fauci can remain silent, but that silence will remain deafening for many in this country.

The right to do something does not make it the right thing to do. Fauci, in my view, was wrong to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination even if it was his right to do so. Millions of Americans lost loved ones during the pandemic, and the United States had one of the worst records in dealing with COVID-19 in terms of costs and deaths. Fauci’s diaries exposed disturbing contradictions between what he previously stated publicly and what he actually believed. Americans have a right to know the truth, and Fauci was not saying a thing, invoking the privilege 111 times.

He will say nothing to the families who lost loved ones or the business owners ruined by now-debunked pandemic measures.

He will say nothing to the scientists who were canceled, blacklisted, and fired for opposing these policies. Those scientists did not get the bobbleheads and celebrity photos that Fauci celebrated in his diaries. As the mob hounded them, Fauci said nothing as he gushed about his own fame in his diary.

He will say nothing despite the protection of a presidential pardon. For that, he should be rightfully condemned. Fauci’s contempt of Congress is challengeable, but his contempt for the public is undeniable.

mspart

 

 

 

It’ll take going to court to decide whether he has the right to plead Fifth Amendment rights or not.  I’d just as soon they challenge the pardon in prosecuting him for the graver offenses he committed. 

[1032004]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

https://jonathanturley.org/2026/08/06/the-sound-of-silence-dr-faucis-contempt-of-congress-can-be-challenged-but-his-contempt-for-the-public-cannot-be-denied/#more-247998

Interesting article by Turley about Fauci's 5th amendment situation with regard to contempt of Congress.  Dr Turley says that Fauci has the right to take the 5th, and that it will be tough to prosecute him for that by Congress or DOJ.   But he also feels that Fauci has the moral responsibility to answer to things he did and the contradicting things he wrote in his diary.   A very interesting take on the subject.  

“Today I am the most famous and talked-about person in the country.” Those words from the diary of Dr. Anthony Fauci will certainly be true today as the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs moves forward with holding him in contempt for refusing to answer over a hundred questions about his past conduct and statements as the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The contempt vote will start a process that is fraught with political and legal challenges. Even putting aside the objections to the direct referral from the Committee to the Justice Department (rather than submit the matter to a full Senate vote), there remain serious questions about whether Fauci can be held in contempt after invoking his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment. As I have previously stated, this area is rather murky and Fauci likely has the advantage in any litigation.

At the outset, it is important to note that Fauci always faced a risk of perjury in his prior appearances. Even if immunized, a witness can always be prosecuted for false statements. Fauci is in a much stronger position today than he was in prior hearings due to the sweeping pardon he received from former President Joe Biden. Yet, he suddenly decided to remain silent when his own words came back to contradict him.

Now for the legal questions.

If a witness is immunized, they can be compelled to testify. If, for example, the Senate granted Fauci immunity, there would be little question about his answering these questions as well as the ability to charge him for any false statements.

The Senate Committee is arguing that the Biden pardon had the same impact. Since Fauci cannot be prosecuted for any acts during the extended period of the pardon (going back to 2014 when the government allegedly funded “gain-of-function research). Chairman Rand Paul did an excellent job in putting this issue into sharp relief in his final set of questions by framing his inquiry as confined to the period of his pardon.

The argument is credible and, for many, compelling: since Fauci cannot be prosecuted for any conduct during the pardon period, he has no legal exposure so long as he speaks truthfully.

For Fauci, that is a question that could be highly subjective. He referred to the risk of a “perjury trap” in his opening statement. He declared, “The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something — anything — that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, quote, ‘behind bars.’”

Even that statement could present a matter for litigation. Congress previously found in 2013 when high-ranking IRS leader Lois Lerner also pleaded the Fifth after giving an opening statement before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The Justice Department under the Obama Administration refused to prosecute. Fauci will argue that such a general statement does not waive the privilege and that, when asked a question, he promptly and consistently invoked it.

Of course, this is the Trump Administration, not the Obama Administration. Ironically, if the matter is litigated, the Administration will be in the position of defending the pardon, which it has long questioned, as the result of Joe Biden’s infamous autopen. The ability to hold Fauci in contempt becomes dependent on that pardon being valid.

The Justice Department can argue that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the mere fear of a perjury charge is insufficient to compel witnesses who are immunized, dating back to 1896 in Brown v. Walker. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “anticipatory perjury” is not a basis for such a refusal to testify in cases such as United States v. Apfelbaum.

However, Fauci can cite new state investigations as unaffected by the federal pardon, as well as new questions arising outside the pardon that could theoretically pose ongoing risks of criminal prosecution.

Courts have generally adopted broad interpretations to protect the right to remain silent, a touchstone of our legal system. That is why I believe Fauci likely has the edge in any challenge.

The fact is that it is uncertain. The cases in this area remain relatively sparse, and any pardon case is highly case-specific to the confines and scope of the specific pardon.

If so, Fauci can remain silent, but that silence will remain deafening for many in this country.

The right to do something does not make it the right thing to do. Fauci, in my view, was wrong to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination even if it was his right to do so. Millions of Americans lost loved ones during the pandemic, and the United States had one of the worst records in dealing with COVID-19 in terms of costs and deaths. Fauci’s diaries exposed disturbing contradictions between what he previously stated publicly and what he actually believed. Americans have a right to know the truth, and Fauci was not saying a thing, invoking the privilege 111 times.

He will say nothing to the families who lost loved ones or the business owners ruined by now-debunked pandemic measures.

He will say nothing to the scientists who were canceled, blacklisted, and fired for opposing these policies. Those scientists did not get the bobbleheads and celebrity photos that Fauci celebrated in his diaries. As the mob hounded them, Fauci said nothing as he gushed about his own fame in his diary.

He will say nothing despite the protection of a presidential pardon. For that, he should be rightfully condemned. Fauci’s contempt of Congress is challengeable, but his contempt for the public is undeniable.

mspart

 

 

 

This seems to be mostly just rehashing Turley’s article from last week.  As he noted, he can get the answers he’s seeking if they give Fauci immunity for what he says.  But they won’t do that.  Because they don’t actually want answers, so we can stop the charade of claiming that getting answers was the purpose of the hearing.

[Bigbrog]

13 hours ago, 1032004 said:

This seems to be mostly just rehashing Turley’s article from last week.  As he noted, he can get the answers he’s seeking if they give Fauci immunity for what he says.  But they won’t do that.  Because they don’t actually want answers, so we can stop the charade of claiming that getting answers was the purpose of the hearing.

 "they don't want answers"...  seriously WTF!?!?

[1032004]

48 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

 "they don't want answers"...  seriously WTF!?!?

They don’t.  It’s not even debatable.  Otherwise they’d give Fauci immunity for what he says.  They wanted to prosecute Fauci and when they realized he wasn’t going to give them anything to allow that to happen, they just wanted to grandstand.

[Bigbrog]

8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

They don’t.  It’s not even debatable.  Otherwise they’d give Fauci immunity for what he says.  They wanted to prosecute Fauci and when they realized he wasn’t going to give them anything to allow that to happen, they just wanted to grandstand.

[Caveira]

40 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

They don’t.  It’s not even debatable.  Otherwise they’d give Fauci immunity for what he says.  They wanted to prosecute Fauci and when they realized he wasn’t going to give them anything to allow that to happen, they just wanted to grandstand.

Why would he get immunity if he broke the law?   Your a bit wrong here 

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

Why would he get immunity if he broke the law?   Your a bit wrong here 

If they wanted actual answers and not just to try to catch him in the slightest contradiction to try to charge him with perjury, they’d have given him immunity for what he said.   Even Turley acknowledged this.

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

If they wanted actual answers and not just to try to catch him in the slightest contradiction to try to charge him with perjury, they’d have given him immunity for what he said.   Even Turley acknowledged this.

You are beyond blindly biased dude.   

[Caveira]

5 hours ago, 1032004 said:

If they wanted actual answers and not just to try to catch him in the slightest contradiction to try to charge him with perjury, they’d have given him immunity for what he said.   Even Turley acknowledged this.

He’s also covering for other people.   You know this.  We know this.  Everyone knows this.  But yet here we are 

[Caveira]

5 hours ago, 1032004 said:

If they wanted actual answers and not just to try to catch him in the slightest contradiction to try to charge him with perjury, they’d have given him immunity for what he said.   Even Turley acknowledged this.

Also.  Looks like they want answers 

Senate Panel Votes to Hold Fauci in Contempt for Refusing to Answer Questions

Legal scrutiny mounts on the former top health official after he repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment during a hearing about the pandemic response

By 

Sabrina Siddiqui

 and 

Liz Essley Whyte

Updated Aug. 6, 2026 at 10:56 am ET